3 ms·

Instead of emotionally arguing with someone, you should rationally consider how to persuade the person, and whether it is worth it. That's a much better sugges

• jerf 16y ago
  "Instead of emotionally arguing with someone, you should rationally consider how to persuade the person," What is your evidence that this works any better than raw applications of social power (which is the failure state described in the article)?
  • thejash 16y ago
    My statement would still be true in that case. You would just be proposing a shortcut because "rationally consider how to persuade" would be a constant function that always returned "apply raw social power". However, as can be pretty clearly seen from psychological literature, neither making emotional and oppositional statements (what I was saying) or "raw application of social power" (whatever that means) is the most effective method of persuading someone. Here is a list of 18 studies demonstrating the subtleties of persuasion (3rd google result for "psychological studies on persuasion") http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/01/the-psychology-of-persuasion.php http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/01/the-psychology-of-persuasio...
    • stcredzero 16y ago
      "apply raw social power" This follows my experience of how decisions are made in corporate America. It's all about animal dominance games. Logic is only an auxiliary weapon. It's a grenade launcher beside the main cannon.